The Trouble With Irshad Manji

mohar11:

``You are an anthropologist and you want ``Broad, universal definition`` of religion ???? :)))) Never mind man - forget I asked.``

I don`t want a broad definition of religion.

mohar11:

``I don`t how you became an anthropologist - but let me teach you secualrism: it is very simple really - separation of church and state. Millions of simple average folks understand it. You live in the West - so just look around you - you are surrounded by such people - secular and enlightened. These folks built the country and systems whose good fruits you are enjoying right now.``

Pardon. I`m a student of anthropology...forgive me. I just go around touting myself as an anthropologist--or, more specifically, an Anthropological Archaeologist with emphasis in the ancient Near East. As for secularism, no elaboration needed. What you posted is a sophomoric explanation that anyone with a background in Christianity could comprehend. Many apologists for secularism haven’t the faintest clue who first coined the term—much less its sociological function

Mohar11:

`` you are surrounded by such people - secular and enlightened. These folks built the country and systems whose good fruits you are enjoying right now.``

I`m not advocating the eradication of secularism. Far from it, I`m advocating that secularism is an a priori.

Brucelee:

``Could you explain that in English please? Are you constipated?``

Easy. Religion should not be pinned down due to its complexity. To prescribe a working definition to a religion would muddle one`s understanding of it.

Tahmed32:

Gunter Lulings thesis was supposed to be an antidote to the problems of the Muslim world. It failed miserably in Islamic world as well as the western world. The problem with his thesis is that it’s circular.

As for Luxenberg, there`s no surprise that he`s a Christian. His work is considered tentative and circular--and too amateurish. Angelika Neuwirth is far more serious and more salubrious.

--Ibn

Re:urstruly #66

I think every muslim agrees that Islam as a religion has a political and social dimension besides just the spiritual aspect. Ergo, any political struggle in the Islamic world has a religious component to it. Muslims themselves argue that Islam covers their entire span of existence and can`t be looked at in isolation from politics. Hence the political issues in the Islamic world automatically assume a religious connotation. In addition, virtually every political struggle in the Islamic world uses religious symbols. Suicide bombers read out Quranic verses on video before blowing themselves up. Beheaders chant Allah-o-Akbar prior to committing their deed. This is a reality that you cannot wish away.

No one wishes to minimize the political struggles in the Islamic world. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Chechneya conflict definitely have political basis. The issue is the means used in these conflicts. If you want to attack military installations or personnel, that is acceptable. My understanding is that Islam explicity forbids any harm to civilians, even trees during a conflict. Yet you see bomb blasts outside nightclubs, suicide bombings of innocent civilians including muslims and beheadings of innocent people occuring even as the religion is wrongly evoked during these acts. Now you will argue that Israelis and US have harmed civilians as collateral damage. But the difference is that they have never gone out and willingly killed civilians as a state policy just because these civilians were easy targets. In any case, two wrongs don`t make a right. At least people shouldn`t use religious symbols in the process as it wrongly associates the religion with violence.

What can ordinary muslims do about this? They can raise their collective voice against this situation and loudly condemn these acts as unislamic acts that are causing even more misunderstanding with the rest of the world and reducing the chances of any resolution. Anyone who supports such acts should be ostracised and cut-off from all support. That is the only way you can get back your faith from these people who have hijacked it.

Re:#75

Satyamvada, please go ahead and worship rats, dogs, cockroaches or anything else that appeals to you. It is not my cup of tea. I have seen video clips of this temple where live rats were swarming all over the place and people were worshipping them. It made my stomach turn. If you don`t feel bothered by that and accept it as a mainfestation of diversity in hinduism, good for you. Different strokes for different folks!! Also, instead of personal attacks, I will appreciate it if we can have a civilized debate.

re mordant_muslim #82:

``Communism doesn`t see itself as a faith. No, it sees itself as a self-asserting public ethic that dubs capitalism as its unholy `other`. Moreover, you and I bespeak of wholly different conceptions of faith. Islam does not necessitate the banishment of philosophic reflection. After all, wasn’t that the pinnacle of Irshad Manji’s book?``

I don`t need to read Manji`s book because I don`t need the preaching....and whatever little desire I had has been extinguished by hamidm.

No religion, revealed or otherwise requires the banishment of philosophic reflection. However after much reflection if the picture is still murky, maybe one should stop looking at the reflection and starting looking at reality. The reality of Islam cannot be wished away by philosophical musings in the ivory tower.

re tahmed32 #84:

Yaar, if mainstream ``scholars`` like armstrong, esposito, lewis, smith as you quote are saying something, shall we suspend our personal judgement and hide in the sand like the proverbial ostrich? Desis are the only people I know who look for affirmation of their beliefs from ``scholars`` of western origin. Wolpert`s word on Jinnah and Karen Armstrong`s on Islam is taken as the gospel truth. Maybe because they are supposed to be unbiased? Maybe we should give our own ``scholars`` and more importantly ourselves more credit.

later
-sac

UmerMurtaza

Muslims talking about the brainswashing of others is like a skunk telling other people that they stink. Thats the funniest thing you have said ;-)

Mordant_Muslim

You are lost halfway between the sixth century and forever.

Simple point, prosletysing religions should never squeal when subjected to the scrutiny of other religions and civilisations. Blubbing makes you look pathetic.

I repeat - this is unimportant bullshit. I think Irshad Maji is entitled to her views and muslims and Pakistanis have more pressing matters. If she wants to be a carpet-muncher and retain some islamic views whether right or wrong (and again it`s all open to conjecture) I think she`s harmless in the greater scheme of things.

What concerns me more is the fact that harassment of females in public places in Pakistan is still going unchecked. It`s bad enough that it goes on but having to read about it every other day just gets depressing!

Mordant_Muslim said:

( find the premises of secularism to be assumed rather than cogently demonstrated. In order to jump to the secular conclusion one must make a broad--universal--definition of `religion`--a jump I`m not willing to take. I do not believe in the definition of religion because no such definition is possible, `not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.`)

Could you explain that in English please? Are you constipated?

Thanks

:-)

Mordant Muslim #81 Another informative post!

You refer to Gunther Luling (who seems to have done a lot of work, along with Luxenberg) in relating the Quran to its christian antecedents, including the aramaic origins of some of the hitherto supposedly meaningless parts of the Quran (i assume this means the ``alif laam meems`` and so on).

I also understand that last year in Yemen they found pages from the Quran that pre-date the standardized version of Usman that has been carried forward thru the centuries. All this scientific study of the Quran is going on in europe and is certainly something very interesting. If you have any further links, cut and pastes or other info to share on this book by Luling, I would appreciate your posting it.

Thanks.

Ibn
//...There are too many reasons why I am not a secularist....one must make a broad--universal--definition of `religion` ...definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes//

You are an anthropologist and you want ``Broad, universal definition`` of religion ???? :)))) Never mind man - forget I asked.

I don`t how you became an anthropologist - but let me teach you secualrism: it is very simple really - separation of church and state. Millions of simple average folks understand it. You live in the West - so just look around you - you are surrounded by such people - secular and enlightened. These folks built the country and systems whose good fruits you are enjoying right now.

This topic has been done to death in various fora, and yet I am amazed how often we come back to the same thing..... Again and again, we have to explain this concept to muslims living in western secular societies and continue to enjoy the good fruits of a secular society has offered them ... and yet they could never understand or accept accept the simple concept of secularism.

So I am not at all surprised you are a ``skeptic of secularism``. There are just too many of your kind.

How can you be a ``skeptic of secularism`` when you continue to enjoy the good fruits of a secular society has offered you? Please answer in plain english , if you can, without going into ``broad, universal definitions`` of whatever :))

[ I hope I won`t regret asking this question ]

relevant article by DP

---

What do Muslims believe regarding freedom of religious choice? A Koranic verse (2:256) answers: ``There is no compulsion in religion``(in Arabic: la ikrah fi`d-din). That sounds clear-cut and the Islamic Center of Southern California insists it is, arguing that it shows how Islam anticipated the principles in the U.S. Constitution. The center sees the First Amendment (``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof``) as based on concepts in the Koran`s nocompulsion verse.

In a similar spirit, a former chief justice of Pakistan, S.A. Rahman, argues that the Koranic phrase contains ``a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.`` To a Western sensibility, this interpretation makes intuitive sense. Thus does Alan Reynolds, an economist at the CATO Institute, write in the Washington Times that the verse signifies the Koran ``counsels religious tolerance.``

Were it only so simple.

In fact, this deceptively simple phrase historically has had a myriad of meanings. Here are some of them, mostly premodern, deriving from two outstanding recent books, Patricia Crone`s ``God`s Rule: Government and Islam`` (Columbia University Press) and Yohanan Friedman`s ``Tolerance and Coercion in Islam`` (Cambridge University Press), augmented by my own research. Proceeding from least liberal to most liberal, the no-compulsion phrase is considered variously to have been:

* Abrogated: The passage was overridden by subsequent Koranic verses (such as 9:73 ``O Prophet! Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them``).

* Purely symbolic: The phrase is a description, not an imperative. Islam`s truth is so obvious that to coerce someone to become a Muslim does not amount to ``compulsion``; or else being made to embrace Islam after defeat in war is not viewed as ``compulsion.``

* Spiritual, not practical: Governments may indeed compel external obedience, though they of course cannot compel how Muslims think.

* Limited in time and place: It applied uniquely to Jews in Medina in the seventh century.

* Limited to non-Muslims who live under and accept Muslim rule: Some jurists say it applies only to ``Peoples of the Book`` (Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians); others say it applies to all infidels.

* Excludes some non-Muslims: Apostates, women, children, prisoners of war, and others can indeed be compelled. (This is the standard interpretation that has applied in most times and places).

* Limited to all non-Muslims: Muslims must abide by the tenets of Islam and may not apostatize.

* Limited to Muslims: Muslims may shift from one interpretation of their faith to another (such as from Sunni to Shia), but may not leave Islam.

* Applied to all persons: Reaching the true faith must be achieved through trial and testing, and compulsion undercuts this process. Massive disagreement over a short phrase is typical, for believers argue over the contents of all sacred books, not just the Koran. The debate over the no-compulsion verse has several important implications.

First, it shows that Islam - like all religions - is whatever believers make of it. The choices for Muslims range from Taliban-style repression to Balkan-style liberality. There are few limits; and there is no ``right`` or ``wrong`` interpretation. Muslims have a nearly clean slate to resolve what ``no compulsion`` means in the 21st century.

Conversely, nonspecialists should be very cautious about asserting the meaning of the Koran, which is fluid and subjective. When Alan Reynolds wrote that the no-compulsion verse means the Koran ``counsels religious tolerance,`` he intended well but in fact misled his readers.

Further, many other areas of Islam have parallels to this debate. Muslims can decide afresh what jihad signifies, what rights women have, what role government should play, what forms of interest on money should be banned, plus much else. How they resolve these great issues affects the whole world. Finally, although Muslims alone will make these decisions, Westerners can influence their direction. Repressive elements (such as the Saudi regime) can be set back by a reduced dependence on oil. More liberal Muslims (such as the Ataturkists) can be marginalized by letting an Islamist-led Turkey enter the European Union.

What non-Muslims do also has potentially a great impact on whether ``no compulsion in religion`` translates into religious tolerance or permits (as in the case of Salman Rushdie) a license to kill.

the problem with rodents,

while we were berating poor manji for her sexual misconduct and deviant religious behaviour we almost missed an interesting sidebar discussion on the merits of constructing temples to rodents :``Also what is wrong in having a temple for rats ? why not ?``

............ exactly !...... i say, why not! ......... it gets wilder by the minute!

Mordant Muslim: ````My call was to ask for Muslims to see Islam as a faith, not an ideology.``

These are the wisest words I have seen on chowk in a long, long time. To a large extent you are tossing pearls before swine, (or playing the bansaree before the water buffalo, to use the urdu equivalent) but dont let that bother you. :-)

(I see sac does not like this, since islam is anathema to him, and not because he has any solid basis for doing so - mainstream western scholars like armstrong, esposito, lewis, smith - are effectively saying exactly what you wrote. It is not without reason that BJP - the party of hindutva ideology in india - has always been so much more prominent in India than religious parties in pakistan. While we have a lot of primitive mindsets among muslims, they seem to be equally - and perhaps far more - widespread among indians (regardless of their pretensions when they refer to the US and india in the same breath as sac did in his post).

``Having faith in returning surplus value back to the serfs did not make communism immune from the dangers of totalarianism.``

Communism doesn`t see itself as a faith. No, it sees itself as a self-asserting public ethic that dubs capitalism as its unholy `other`. Moreover, you and I bespeak of wholly different conceptions of faith. Islam does not necessitate the banishment of philosophic reflection. After all, wasn’t that the pinnacle of Irshad Manji’s book?

``Your recipe merely delays the plunder of the ka`aba at the hands of the suffering who are being fed a heady cocktail of zionist conspiracies, American schemes and Hindu evil.``

Indeed it would. However, we`re speaking in terms of ideology if we`re referring to indoctrination of ``zionist conspiracies, American schemes and Hindu evil.`` That ideology would be unrelenting promotion of Arab-centred linguistics, politics and hyperbole.

--Ibn

Amit states:

... On the other hand, most people recognize that at its core Islam is a great religion and has a lot to offer to entire humanity, not just to muslims. Currently some people have hijacked the religion and are misinterpreting it to create the specter of global terrorism where people are getting beheaded and suicide bombers are killing innocent people even in mosques of other sects....``

This seems like a far cry from the statement you made earlier. Is Islam essentially evil or has it prevaricated from its essence? If a religion must reform itself from its essential nature it is by no means essentially good.

Mohar11 states: ``I thought so. So why are you a `skeptic of secularism` ?``

There are too many reasons why I am not a secularist. As an anthropologist (and much more), I find the premises of secularism to be assumed rather than cogently demonstrated. In order to jump to the secular conclusion one must make a broad--universal--definition of `religion`--a jump I`m not willing to take. I do not believe in the definition of religion because no such definition is possible, `not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.`

PM,

My autograph? No problem, bro.

--Ibn

Urstruly

hahaha g` one

re mordant_muslim #65:

``My call was to ask for Muslims to see Islam as a faith, not an ideology.``

This alone speaks volumes about the confusion in your mind. Keeping Islam in the realm of faith does not render it toothless. It merely delays the onset of the infection. Having faith in returning surplus value back to the serfs did not make communism immune from the dangers of totalarianism. Your recipe merely delays the plunder of the ka`aba at the hands of the suffering who are being fed a heady cocktail of zionist conspiracies, American schemes and Hindu evil.

later
-sac